This is an Awareness Blog to consider the future of your world. Actions are being done now to restore our world. Watch and become AWARE!
3.5 MILLION VIEWS PER MONTH
Exclusive public outlet for documentation and notices from The Original Jurisdiction Republic 1861 circa 2010.

Friday, June 9, 2017

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does
oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything
remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must
be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become
unwitting victims of the darkness.”—Supreme Court Justice William O.
Douglas

We have entered a new regime and it’s called the American police state.
As the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez makes clear, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice.
Continuing its disturbing trend of siding with police in cases of
excessive use of force, a unanimous Court declared that police should
not be held liable for recklessly firing 15 times into a shack where a homeless couple—Angel and Jennifer Mendez—was sleeping.
Understandably, the Mendezes were startled by the intruders, so much
so that Angel was holding his BB gun, which he used to shoot rats, in
defense. Despite the fact that police barged into the Mendez’s backyard
shack without a search warrant and without announcing
their presence and fired 15 shots at the couple, who suffered
significant injuries (Angel Mendez suffered numerous gunshot wounds, one
of which required the amputation of his right leg below the knee, and
his wife Jennifer was shot in the back), the Court once again gave the police a “get out of jail free” card.
Unfortunately, we’ve been traveling this dangerous road for a long time now.
In the police state being erected around us, the police and other
government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip
and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance,
all with the general blessing of the courts.
Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists
on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually
validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police
demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the
Constitution.
These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where
police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with
keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on
keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects
and enemies rather than citizens.
While the First Amendment—which gives us a voice—is being muzzled,
the Fourth Amendment—which protects us from being bullied, badgered,
beaten, broken and spied on by government agents—is being disemboweled.
A review of critical court rulings over the past decade or so,
including some ominous ones by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a
startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an
institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting the
ruling class and government agents than with upholding the rights
enshrined in the Constitution.Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Strieff,
the U.S. Supreme Court effectively gave police a green light to embark
on a fishing expedition of one’s person and property, rendering
Americans completely vulnerable to the whims of any cop on the beat.
In a blistering dissent in Utah v. Strieff, Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the court for holding “that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights.” Sotomayor continued:

This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for
whatever reason he wants—so long as he can point to a pretextual
justification after the fact. That justification must provide specific
reasons why the officer suspected you were breaking the law, but it may
factor in your ethnicity, where you live, what you were wearing, and how
you behaved. The officer does not even need to know which law you might have broken so long as he can later point to any possible infraction—even one that is minor, unrelated, or ambiguous.The indignity of the stop is not limited to an officer telling you that you look like a criminal.
The officer may next ask for your “consent” to inspect your bag or
purse without telling you that you can decline. Regardless of your
answer, he may order you to stand “helpless, perhaps facing a wall with
[your] hands raised.” If the officer thinks you might be dangerous, he
may then “frisk” you for weapons. This involves more than just a pat
down. As onlookers pass by, the officer may “‘feel with sensitive
fingers every portion of [your] body. A thorough search [may] be made of
[your] arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about
the testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet.’”

If you still can’t read the writing on the wall, Sotomayor breaks it
down further: “This case allows the police to stop you on the street,
demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic
warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong…
So long as the target is one of the many millions of people in this
country with an outstanding arrest warrant, anything the officer finds
in a search is fair game for use in a criminal prosecution. The
officer’s incentive to violate the Constitution thus increases...”Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or
for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving
too carefully. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. More recently, in State v. Howard, the Kansas Supreme Court declared that motorists who recline their car seats are guilty of suspicious behavior
and can be subject to warrantless searches by police. That ruling,
coupled with other court rulings upholding warrantless searches and
seizures by police—for such “suspicious” behavior as having acne scars,
driving with a stiff upright posture, having car windows that are too
heavily tinted, driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain
speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving,
screeching a car’s tires, leaving a parked car door open for too long,
avoiding a traffic light by driving through a parking lot, driving near a
bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a
certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix and Hummers are among the most
ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror
(air fresheners, handicap parking permits, toll transponders or
rosaries), or displaying pro-police bumper stickers—renders one’s car a
Constitution-free zone.Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit.
The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by
shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car,
killing both individuals.Police can “steal” from Americans who are innocent of any wrongdoing. In refusing to hear a challenge to Texas’ asset forfeiture law, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas police to keep $201,000 in ill-gotten cash
primarily on the basis that the seized cash—the proceeds of a home
sale—was being transported on a highway associated with illegal drug
trade, despite any proof of illegal activity by the owner. Asset
forfeiture laws, which have come under intense scrutiny and criticism in
recent years, allow the police to seize property “suspected” of being
connected to criminal activity without having to prove the owner of the
property is guilty of a criminal offense.Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint, although mandatory blood draws violate the Fourth Amendment (Birchfield v. North Dakota). Police can also conduct sobriety and “information-seeking” checkpoints (Illinois v. Lidster and Mich. Dep't of State Police v. Sitz).Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. In Maryland v. King,
a divided U.S. Supreme Court determined that a person arrested for a
crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must
submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided
with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual
liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “serious” offenses.
While the Court claims to have made its decision based upon concerns of
properly identifying criminal suspects upon arrest, what they actually
did is open the door for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via
DNA sampling.Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Upon arriving on the scene of a nighttime traffic accident, an Alabama police officer shot a driver exiting his car, mistakenly believing the wallet in his hand to be a gun.
From the time the driver stumbled out of his car, waving his wallet in
the air, to the time he was shot in the abdomen, only six seconds had
elapsed. Although the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded “that a
reasonable officer in Hancock’s position would have feared for his
life,” the video footage makes clear that the courts continue to march
in lockstep with the police, because no reasonable person would shoot
first and ask questions later. A report by the Justice Department found
that half of the unarmed people shot by one police department over a
seven-year span were “shot
because the officer saw something (like a cellphone) or some action
(like a person pulling at the waist of their pants) and misidentified it
as a threat.”Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.” In Florida v. Harris, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars
during routine traffic stops. In doing so, the justices sided with
police by claiming that all that the police need to do to prove probable
cause for a search is simply assert that a drug detection dog has
received “proper” training. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an
extension of the police state, provided the use of a K-9 unit takes
place within a reasonable amount of time (Rodriguez v. United States).Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a police officer who allowed a police dog to maul a homeless man innocent of any wrongdoing.
The case arose in 2010 after a police dog attacked a homeless man near
an abandoned house where police were tracking a robbery suspect. The cop
refused to call off the dog immediately, despite the man’s pleading and
the fact that he did not match the description of the robbery suspect.
The homeless man suffered deep bites on his hand, arm and thigh—which
required a nearly 16-inch skin graft—as well as causing severe bleeding,
bruising, swelling and an arterial blood clot. Incredibly, not only did
the court declare that the police officer was protected by qualified
immunity, which incentivizes government officials to violate
constitutional rights without fear of repercussion, but it had the nerve
to suggest that being mauled by a police dog is the equivalent of a
lawful Terry stop in which police may stop and hold a person for questioning on the basis of “reasonable suspicion.”Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” A divided U.S. Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches. In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington,
the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a
jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they
can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be
subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials, which involves
exposing the genitals and the buttocks. This “license to probe” is now
being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the
country have begun performing roadside strip searches—some involving
anal and vaginal probes—without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a
warrant.Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King,
the U.S. Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police
officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong
apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us
and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving
Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of
abuses by police.Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment.
Aggressive “knock and talk” practices have become thinly veiled,
warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into
“talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the
middle of the night. Poor Andrew Scott didn’t even get a chance to say
no to such a heavy-handed request before he was gunned down by police
who pounded aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 a.m., failed to
identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed the
man when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense.Police can interrogate minors without parents present. In a devastating ruling that could very well do away with what little Fourth Amendment protections remain to public school students and their families—the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a lower court ruling in Camreta v. Greene,
which required government authorities to secure a warrant, a court
order or parental consent before interrogating students at school. The
ramifications are far-reaching, rendering public school students as
wards of the state. Once again, the courts sided with law enforcement
against the rights of the people.It’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, a majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman asks “What’s your name?” can rightfully be considered a crime
under Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute. No longer will Americans,
even those not suspected of or charged with any crime, have the right to
remain silent when stopped and questioned by a police officer.Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous.
Police can perform a “no-knock” raid as long as they have a reasonable
suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the
particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile or give occupants
a chance to destroy evidence of a crime (Richards v. Wisconsin). Legal ownership of a firearm is also enough to justify a no-knock raid by police (Quinn v. Texas).
For instance, a Texas man had his home subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team
style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there
were legally-owned firearms in his household. The homeowner was actually
shot by police through his closed bedroom door.The military can arrest and detain American citizens. In refusing to hear Hedges v. Obama
(2014), a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), the U.S. Supreme
Court affirmed that the President and the U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens. In so doing, the high court also passed up an opportunity to overturn its 1944 Korematsu v. United States ruling allowing for the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People,
we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police
violence carried out against individuals posing little or no real
threat, who are nevertheless subjected to such excessive police force as
to end up maimed or killed.
When all is said and done, what these assorted court rulings add up
to is a disconcerting government mindset that interprets the
Constitution one way for the elite—government entities, the police,
corporations and the wealthy—and uses a second measure altogether for
the underclasses—that is, you and me.
Article posted with permission from John Whitehead

Nesaranews Mission Statement

Question -- What is the goal of this website? Why do we share different sources of information that sometimes conflicts or might even be considered disinformation?

Answer -- The primary goal of Nesaranews is to help all people become better truth-seekers in a real-time boots-on-the-ground fashion. This is for the purpose of learning to think critically, discovering the truth from within—not just believing things blindly because it came from an "authority" or credible source. Instead of telling you what the truth is, we share information from many sources so that you can discern it for yourself. We focus on teaching you the tools to become your own authority on the truth, gaining self-mastery, sovereignty, and freedom in the process. We want each of you to become your own leaders and masters of personal discernment, and as such, all information should be vetted, analyzed and discerned at a personal level. We also encourage you to discuss your thoughts in the comments section of this site to engage in a group discernment process.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." – Aristotle

11

Followers

The articles on this blog are reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

US Supreme Court, in 1985, “Dowling v. United States”, unequivocally held that allegations of copyright infringement can be prosecuted only under copyright-specific legislation, not criminal law.